This year marks the 20th anniversary of a remarkable
discovery which forever changed the legal profession. In 1985,
Alec Jeffreys (now Sir Alec), a young genetics professor at
Leicester University, discovered DNA fingerprinting?the
technique which allows for unambiguous human identification as
well as relationship identification between different people.
Since then, DNA
testing has emerged as a powerful tool in both civil and
criminal justice systems. DNA testing can not only reveal
whether two or more individuals are related but can also
determine the nature of this relationship. Today, it is possible
to identify people by a single hair, as well as obtain
information about their gender, ethnic background, and nearly
their exact age.

In non-criminal legal practice, DNA testing is used primarily
for immigration and child support cases. In 2004, more than
7,000 DNA tests were conducted in the UK for these purposes.
When no reliable documentary evidence is available, DNA testing
can assist in determining varying degrees of relatedness between
individuals, as well as their ethnic background.

The landmark immigration case Sarbah vs. Home Office
(1985) was the first to use DNA testing to prove a mother-son
relationship between Christiana Sarbah and her son Andrew.

The case started in 1983 when Andrew, then 13, arrived in
England after a long stay in Ghana with Christiana's estranged
husband. Immigration officials held him at Heathrow Airport,
claiming his passport was forged, or that a substitution had
been made. Only after intervention by a local MP was Andrew
allowed to stay at his family's home in London.

Various genetic-determining tests showed that Christiana and
Andrew were almost certainly related; however, it was impossible
to determine whether Christiana was his mother or merely an aunt
(Christiana has several sisters in Ghana). The photographic
evidence and depositions were rejected at an immigration
hearing, but deportation was delayed pending an appeal.

Around the same time, an article in The Guardian
reported the discovery of DNA fingerprinting by Prof. Alec
Jeffreys and his team at the University of Leicester. After
reading about their work, the legal team dealing with the case
approached Prof. Jeffreys, and he agreed to take on the case. In
order to prove that Christiana was Andrew?s mother, a DNA test
was performed on blood samples from Christiana, Andrew, an
unrelated individual, and Christiana's three undisputed
children: David, Joyce, and Diana.

Using a recently discovered DNA probe, a DNA fingerprint was
produced which confirmed that Christiana was indeed Andrew?s
biological mother, and that David, Joyce and Diana were his
siblings. Based on this evidence, the case was dropped by the
Home Office and massive press coverage ensued. The discovery of
DNA fingerprinting had huge implication for the non-criminal
legal system and led to an overhaul of the UK?s Immigration
legislation. Current UK immigration legislation accepts results
of DNA testing as the ultimate proof or relationship between a
child and his or her relatives. Accordingly, DNA test results
will normally (although not invariably) provide conclusive
evidence as to whether a child is related, as claimed, to one or
both of his alleged parents.

Before January 1991, it was up to the applicant to decide
whether or not to obtain DNA evidence in support of his or her
application or appeal. In January 1991, a government scheme was
introduced, which enables entry clearance officers (ECO) to
offer to arrange DNA tests in cases where they are not satisfied
that persons seeking admission as children are related to their
UK sponsor.